That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would preclude the consideration forthwith of a motion concerning a Hilton Hotel Bombing Inquiry to be moved by the member for South Coast, provided that the following members only shall be permitted to speak for the time limits as indicated:

(1) stresses the imperative and urgent need for a top level, open, joint New South Wales-Federal Government inquiry into the bombing of the Sydney Hilton Hotel on 13th February, 1978;

(2) calls upon the Federal Government to immediately establish the inquiry;

(3) pledges the full co-operation of the New South Wales Government;

(4) emphasises that the terms of reference of the inquiry must embrace events leading up to, as well as, the circumstances and consequences and subsequent investigations of the bombing.

On 13th February, 1978, a garbage truck compactor set off a bomb that had been placed in a bin immediately outside the Hilton Hotel. Prime Ministers and other heads of State and senior political figures from Commonwealth countries gathered in Australia for a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, known as CHOGM, to be held at the Hilton Hotel. The bomb ignited issues of national and international significance, not to mention personal consequences too horrendous and shattering to be ever forgotten by the victims and their families. Three people were killed and others were severely injured, scarred mentally and physically for life. Three people, Anderson, Dunn and Alister, were sentenced to gaol and spent seven years in gaol for a crime they did not commit: conspiring to kill a man named Cameron, the National Front leader. The two cases, the Hilton bombing and the Cameron case, are inextricably linked. Two questions remain: who was responsible and, of more importance, was there a cover-up? The answers lie with the Commonwealth and State officials who failed in their duty, were incompetent, dishonest and devious, obfuscated the truth, abused the due process of the courts, and knowingly lied and presented false evidence. State and Federal officials are involved. This must be the focus of any inquiry: not a retrial; not yet another chance given to discredited Crown witnesses to further cloud the truth; not a witch hunt, but a careful searching, independent inquiry. With regard to the further opportunity to discredit Crown witnesses by trotting out the same old story, Chief Justice Gleeson said in the unanimous Anderson appeal judgment of 6th June, 1991:

I do not consider that the Crown should be given a further opportunity to patch up its case against the appellant. It has already made one attempt too many to do so.

Page 5939That appears at page 74 of the judgment. This inquiry must have the powers of a royal commission, be headed by a judge or leading Queen's Counsel, and be investigated by carefully selected, competent and, above all, independent investigators, otherwise it will be yet another rerun. The inquiry must have terms of reference and powers, and be fully supported, facilitated and resourced to get at the truth. I emphasise the bipartisan nature of this motion, which was brought on with the consent and support of all sides of politics. It is exciting that people are willing to put aside party political matters. The Federal Fraser Government was in office at the time of the bombing and the incumbent Federal Attorney-General has responsibility for the matter at this time. I do not suggest that either were involved in any wrongdoing. I suggest that this motion could have presented an opportunity for political point-scoring, but it has not. In October, in answer to questions asked by the Federal Independent member of Parliament Mr Ted Mack, Mr Duffy said that this matter was the responsibility of the New South Wales Government. He said further:

While the Commonwealth had a direct responsibility for an interest in the safety of the visiting delegates at the 1978 CHOGM, the bomb explosion outside the Hilton Hotel in Sydney in fact involved offences against the laws of New South Wales. Therefore, it is for that State and not the Commonwealth to decide whether another inquiry might be warranted.

I am sure the New South Wales Attorney General will take up that matter with vigour as he has done commendably in the past in the media and in this Parliament. Further answers demonstrate the integrated nature of Commonwealth and State responsibilities for security of delegates of CHOGM. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. A joint Commonwealth-State inquiry must be conducted. The Federal Government is involved. The answers to the question, and other evidence, show that Federal Government agencies were responsible for security at the meeting held inside the Hilton Hotel. The CHOGM was organised by the Federal Government, which was responsible for the security of the heads of State who attended. A joint Federal-State committee planned the security. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation was represented on that committee. There have been persistent suggestions of ASIO involvement in the bombing, for example, from Peter Monahan, a staff member of Senator Mason; Terry Griffiths, a New South Wales police officer injured in the blast; and evidence given at the trial of Tim Anderson that ASIO had infiltrated Ananda Marga. The recent revelation by former senior Army doghandler Keith Burley shows that Army sniffer dogs were used after the blast but were called off the job a few days before the explosion by Army personnel at Victoria Barracks. That is an extraordinary situation, and we must know the reason for that decision.

The officer-in-charge of police immediately after the bombing, Inspector Ian MacDonald, claimed recently there had been a "cover-up", to use his words, in the wake of the bombing. He claimed further that New South Wales and Federal police had requested the establishment of secure areas in both Pitt and George streets, but the request had been refused by the Federal co-ordinating body in charge of security, the Protective Services Co-ordination Centre. Despite extensive investigations by Federal and State authorities no forensic evidence has been forthcoming about the types of explosives used in the blast. One has to stop and wonder in sheer amazement that such a statement could be made so many years later. I point to the investigative work done after the Lockerbie tragedy as an example of what can be done when people apply themselves with due care and responsibility. Mr Duffy said further:

On the information available, it is clear that each Commonwealth agency took all appropriate measures within their individual spheres of responsibility. Security procedures, no matter how exacting, cannot guarantee that such incidents will not happen.

Page 5940I emphasise that in no way am I being critical of Mr Duffy, who has relied on evidence provided to him. I want to know who provided such misleading evidence. I realise that the Minister must take responsibility for it, but I believe he will support the call for an inquiry. The key question asked by Mr Mack was:

Why has the Federal Government never opened a public inquiry to determine:

(A) Why the responsible Federal agency failed to:

(1) prevent the Hilton bombing;

(2) find the perpetrators; and

(B) determine the nature and extent of those agencies involvement in any investigations concerning Mr Anderson.

There is a need for an inquiry into the Hilton bombing, which was the first case of real political terrorism in Australia. Three people were killed, yet the perpetrators have not been punished. It happened in a climate that can only be regarded as extraordinary. For example, not long before the Hilton bombing an inquiry was held in South Australia into the dismissal of that State's Commissioner of Police by Premier Dunstan. An inquiry was conducted into the South Australian special branch by Mr Acting Justice White. The White report revealed that South Australia's special branch maintained an extensive body of files on individuals, issues and organisations. The files contained more than 40,000 indexed cards and 300 separate dossiers that covered not only communist activities but specific so-called terrorist groups such as the Ustashi. They also contained information about the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, personal activities, demonstrations, habitual demonstrators, the peace movement, the Council for Civil Liberties, members of the Supreme Court, previous Governors of the State, State and Federal Labor Party parliamentarians from South Australia and about 1,000 innocent persons about whom absolutely nothing adverse was known.

The most damaging allegations to the South Australian Commissioner of Police were those in the White report that on a number of occasions the commissioner withheld information, and that was the reason given for his dismissal. Premier Dunstan became involved in a top level inquiry about which there was a public outcry. Prime Minister Fraser was so concerned about the outcry that he called the officer-in-charge of ASIO back from holidays for an urgent meeting with the Federal Attorney-General to discuss the security implications of what became known as the Salisbury affair. Salisbury was the name of the dismissed South Australian police commissioner. Prime Minister Fraser wrote to all State Premiers underlining the need for continued co-operation between ASIO and State forces. That was the climate that preceded the Hilton bombing. As a matter of fact, a huge pro-government rally took place in Adelaide just 36 hours prior to the explosion outside the Hilton Hotel in Sydney.

The matters touched upon New South Wales because Dunstan accused the new leader of the New South Wales Opposition, Peter Coleman, of having access to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation files. A considerable amount is involved in that. It now appears that the Ananda Marga was not responsible for the Hilton bombing; so we need to ask who was. Police and Federal agencies mounted a sophisticated operation at the Hilton at that time yet a bomb in a garbage bin outside the hotel was not located. Can that be credibly put down to incompetence? Senior police at the Hilton were in breach of New South Wales police permanent circular 135, dated 28th November, 1972, which clearly indicated that all waste bins should be searched in any potential bomb threat situation. Key security personnel responsible for the operation were not questioned at the inquest or at subsequent trials. Subsequent inquiries have led Page 5941to two convictions in an apparent attempt to deflect responsibility on to innocent parties. These persons convicted have later been pardoned in one case, and overturned, leading to acquittal in another. No inquest was held for four years despite a question that I asked in the Parliament. When that inquest was held, false police evidence led to its early end, which prevented Terry Griffiths from giving evidence.

Evidence was withheld by police about the discovery of explosives in a University of New South Wales locker. Some of this evidence was destroyed by the special branch in 1985. The person who had responsibility for that locker unfortunately committed suicide shortly afterwards. Police and prosecutorial evidence was seriously improper in the 1990 Tim Anderson trial and the Cameron conspiracy trial. This adds to the theory that authorities were hopeful that the securing of a conviction would lessen demands for a full inquiry. The only inquiry into the Hilton bombing was the inquest, yet that was prematurely terminated. The evidence on which it was terminated was given by Richard Seary. Seary's evidence was thoroughly discredited by the Wood inquiry and charges arising from the evidence dropped, yet the inquest has not been reopened or any fuller inquiry instituted. ASIO produced documents relating to Seary to the High Court and later to the New South Wales Attorney General and the Wood inquiry, yet these documents have never been examined for their relevance to the Hilton bombing, only for their relevance to the trial on the Cameron conspiracy charge. The inquest was held in 1982. On 13th October, 1982, Stipendiary Magistrate Walsh found a prima facie case of murder against Dunn and Alister, but not Anderson. On 4th June, 1982, an inquiry by Mr Justice Wood was announced on Seary's evidence.

On 19th June, 1984, all charges arising from the inquest were dropped. Richard Seary, the informant, was used once again. His evidence was known by the Crown authorities to be false and was led in the full knowledge that it would bring the inquest to a close. Evidence of police officer Bruce Jackson at the Anderson trial needs to be referred to, yet no inquiry into the bombing has gone ahead. I said that the premature termination prevented Terry Griffiths from putting his evidence forward. Also known to police at the time but not revealed to the inquest was that explosives found in a locker at the University of New South Wales were linked to the bombing. The hirer of this locker, John Melton, was then alive but subsequently suicided in 1989, two months after Tim Anderson's arrest. I ask members to look at the police involved in the Robert Cameron conspiracy trial: Detective Sergeant Krawczyk, Detective Sergeant John Bourke - I emphasise him - Detective Sergeant Dennis Gilligan - I emphasise him - Detective Sergeant James Wooden, Detective Sergeant Roger Rogerson.

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.

Mr COLLINS (Willoughby), Attorney General, Minister for Consumer Affairs and Minister for Arts [12.36]: I support the motion and on behalf of the Government I welcome it and what I understand to be widespread support for it in the Parliament. In the early hours of the morning of 13th February, 1978, Sydney was witness to the worst act of terrorism ever experienced in this country. The facts of that event are seared into our consciousness and are almost a matter of history. But today, nearly 14 years later, we remain ignorant of the cause. The Hilton bombing cannot simply be relegated to the yellowing pages of history until we know the truth, however unpalatable it may turn out to be. It must also be said that we owe this to the memory of the three who perished, their families, and to those who survived, including bomb victim Terry Griffith who is present today in the public gallery. I do not believe that this Parliament requires to be convinced of the need for an inquiry. However, as members know, I have not been successful in my requests for the Federal Government to join us.

Page 5942

My Federal counterpart, the Hon. Michael Duffy, has said that he does not believe there is new evidence or other information that would justify an inquiry. He has also said that the matters of concern are largely within the responsibility of the Government of New South Wales. With the greatest respect to the Commonwealth Attorney-General, I believe that he is wrongly advised. It is simply incomprehensible that the security arrangements for a meeting of 11 Commonwealth heads of Government were not primarily a Federal responsibility. It is a matter of record that several Commonwealth agencies were directly involved, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Commonwealth Police, as they were then known. In answers to a series of questions asked of him recently, Mr Duffy detailed the role of the Federal agencies, in particular the Protective Services Co-ordination Unit. He said:

At that time the role of the PSCU included the assessment of intelligence for ASIO and the Commonwealth Police and the General Co-ordination of security planning for CHOGM.

My purpose here is not in any way to diminish the responsibility of New South Wales government agencies but to demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt that security of CHOGM was a joint Commonwealth-State effort. It is, therefore, quite unacceptable for the Commonwealth to attempt to advocate responsibility. The Federal Attorney-General has had to correct himself in the Federal Parliament because of incorrect advice received from departmental officers about the use of the sniffer dogs in the Hilton security operation. With mounting absurdity, Federal authorities are trying to argue the impossible based on the implausible. In Mr Duffy's words:

As I understand it, the ADF had dogs which were trained for particular military purposes such as finding trip wires and locating mines, but did not have dogs trained for identifying the presence of explosive.

What preposterous nonsense! A mine is merely a mass produced explosive device produced for military purposes. There is no such device as a mine which does not contain explosives. As a result of the revelations of former Army dog handler Mr Keith Burley we now know that not only were such dogs available but that they were on standby to conduct security checks at the Hilton and were ordered off the assignment a few days before the bombing. Mr Burley has said that if his dogs had been used "there is no doubt whatsoever" that they would have found the explosives. As evidence of the effectiveness of the dogs, he said that one had found a .303 cartridge - which contains a minute amount of explosives - buried a foot underground. Mr Burley's statement is worth quoting:

On the Thursday before the Hilton bombing we received information at the kennels saying that we were no longer required.

This we thought was very unusual, to say the least. We attempted to find out why but were unable to determine where the cancellation came from.

All I know is that it came through Victoria Barracks in Sydney.

Victoria Barracks has been Army headquarters in New South Wales since 1848. Significantly, Mr Burley also believes that his team was used as part of a cover-up after the event. He said:

It was quite clear to us that we were being used mainly for cosmetic purposes . . . Any time there was a camera crew around, someone called for the dogs.

However, the Federal Attorney General - no doubt on the advice of his department - has rejected this revelation, claiming that it does not constitute "new evidence". It is surely up to the Commonwealth, if it wishes to reject this fresh revelation, to identify where in

Page 5943any previous public inquiry this information has been made public. But the new evidence does not stop there. Two weeks ago retired Commonwealth Inspector Ian McDonald revealed:

The New South Wales police also requested that there should be a secure area on the footpath on both Pitt and George Streets for some distance either side of the Hilton. Now, this was refused and in light of subsequent events - the bombing - it is important to know why it was refused.

It is quite incomprehensible that these fundamental precautions were not taken. The failure, in particular, to search the garbage bin immediately in front of the entrance to the hotel simply defies explanation and leaves the suspicion of guarantee that the entrance would remain insecure. The officer-in-charge of the New South Wales part of the operation, Superintendent Reg Douglass, was asked why the bin had not been searched. He replied, "I did not think it was necessary". That stands at complete odds with permanent circular No. 135, which the honourable member for South Coast has already mentioned. That circular included diagrams of areas that should be searched, and the exterior searching pattern, figure 2, clearly indicates that waste cans should be searched as part of a routine search pattern. It is interesting that clause 25 of the same instruction states that the senior army technical officer of Victoria Barracks is responsible for the removal and disposal of military explosive ordinance articles and foreign war souvenirs of this nature. That may be just a coincidence. The waste bins were not searched.

Of this bizarre breach of procedures, Inspector Robert Howe, then head of the New York bomb squad, said, "Rubbish bins would be top of our search list - and we'd send in the dogs". The Hilton bombing saga is a litany of unanswered questions and half truths. Why were the sniffer dogs not used and the bins not searched? Why was the bin outside the Hilton in George Street the only one in the metropolitan area not emptied for several days prior to the bombing? How is it that there is no conclusive forensic evidence when, as the honourable member for South Coast mentioned earlier, a minute fragment of a bomb that exploded in an aeroplane six kilometres above the night skies of Scotland can be traced? Who were the occupants of an orange Torana in George Street when the bomb exploded, and were they involved in the Hilton security operations? Why was the bomb warning phone call - received by police 10 minutes before the bomb exploded - not immediately referred to the Hilton radio room, in blatant disregard of operating procedures for the conference? I have stated previously the Government's willingness to discover the truth about Australia's worst unsolved political crime which is today regarded with indifference by the Commonwealth. Let sleeping dogs lie, say Federal authorities - whereas the key may be that sniffer dogs could not!

This issue, this weeping sore, now in its thirteenth year, transcends political, constitutional and geographical boundaries. The answers may be alarmingly simple. But, whatever the truth, the people of Australia are entitled to nothing less. Whatever the culpability, if any, of those providing security in 1978, the greater culpability falls on those who seek to hide and distort the truth. The mover of this motion seeks, and I trust will receive, the unanimous support of this Parliament. If it occurs, as I understand it will, it will be the first time in the history of the State that all sides have joined in this Parliament to call on the Commonwealth to adopt a particular course of action. Only a joint Federal-State inquiry will resolve these issues, nothing less. I commend this historic call on the Commonwealth to the House.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [12.44]: The parliamentary Labor Party caucus this morning decided to support this motion, a copy of which the honourable member for South Coast was good enough to give me last week before the House adjourned. The motion, in effect, is an expression of support by this House for an open Federal-State inquiry. Many members in the former Government and the present Opposition, including Page 5944the honourable member for Blacktown, Pam Allan, and the former honourable member for Seven Hills, Bob Christie, have been anxiously pursuing this matter on behalf of Mr Griffiths, whom I see in the gallery. It is only that the procedures of the House do not enable the honourable member for Blacktown to be involved in this debate today that her request to me had to be turned down because of the motion of the House to suspend standing orders. The State Attorney General has said on public record that the Commonwealth had to be a part of the deal. I have to agree with him, because the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Mr Duffy, is not right in suggesting that the security officers and protection inquiry that he seeks would be adequate. What stands out above all in relation to the Hilton bombing, which occurred in 1978, is the fact that since that time facts and evidence have either been suppressed or not analysed.

The only way to achieve an effective resolution of this problem is to hold a joint Federal-State inquiry. As I have said to the honourable member for South Coast, that inquiry cannot be just a simple judicial inquiry; it must be a wide-sweeping inquiry in the nature of a royal commission, a Federal-State government royal commission with the terms of reference carefully drafted. Grave risks are associated with a further wide-sweeping royal commission in relation to the Hilton bombing. It should not be incumbent upon this Parliament to make a reference or request to the Commonwealth Government or for the Parliament and Government to form a royal commission that would, of necessity, see a retrial of people who have been already tried twice. I refer to Tim Anderson. An inquiry should not be used as an opportunity to enable a retrial of this now twice-proved innocent person; nor should it be available to those people who have contemptuous regard for the law of this State - people who have chosen to give evidence before a variety of courts and who have changed testimony for the purpose of seeking rehabilitation, a lessening of their prison term or personal satisfaction and publicity. They achieve nothing more than a retrial of a person already proved innocent. The terms of reference have to be tailored very much to ensure that there is no retrial.

The second point I must make is in relation to the Commonwealth department. I agree with what the Attorney General said. Fourteen years is too long. I am disappointed that the Federal Attorney-General has tried to obfuscate this important call for a judicial inquiry. I was so disappointed that I rang his office to obtain a copy of the letter he had sent to the Attorney General. The Attorney General was playing good politics the other day in the Parliament when he made the announcement, but at least he has come to the table on behalf of the Government and agreed there has to be a resolution of this matter. But for the Commonwealth Government to be hiding behind the perceived duties of the New South Wales Parliament and the veil of, "It is not the Commonwealth Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; it is not the Commonwealth police; it is totally for the New South Wales police to be involved", is not right. They were all involved. The people who are responsible for the murder of these three innocent people have been plying on the record of governments not being able to get their act together for the purposes of trying to find who the real culprits are. They have been relying on the jurisdictional difficulties between New South Wales and Commonwealth governments both Labor and Liberal since 1978. This motion will help to remove those jurisdictional and political difficulties.

In my view the royal commission should be restricted to the new matters, for example, the allegations of Mr Burley to which the Attorney General has referred, or to matters which have not been properly investigated or reasonably analysed in the past. A coronial inquiry has been held. There have been two court cases, two Court of Criminal Appeal hearings and in 1984 a lengthy and costly inquiry under section 475 of the Crimes Act. All of that evidence has been analysed and is available. It is open to

Page 5945any royal commissioner to take that analysis on board without the necessity for a long and expensive inquiry. The object of the inquiry will be to ascertain the truth, which can be ascertained in a short time. The inquiry should be restricted to one or two points. First, is there any credible evidence that a member of the security forces - Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the New South Wales special branch, the military, police force or other agencies - was in any way responsible for or had prior knowledge of the Hilton bombing? Second, why were sniffer dogs not used and why was the fatal bin neither checked nor emptied? Third, why was the material found at the University of New South Wales and suspected of being connected to the bombing not used at the 1982 inquest, and why were parts of it later destroyed? Fourth, were all matters properly investigated or was there any evidence of negligence or irresponsibility in the security precautions at the time of the CHOGM conference?

They are some of the matters, but the Opposition supports the proposition that there should be no re-trial of innocent people. The honourable member for South Coast referred to what was said by the Chief Justice in the judgment on Tim Anderson's appeal. The late Mr Justice Murphy, a former High Court judge, was scathing in his criticism of the evidence of one of the prize witnesses, Richard Seary, before various inquiries. With those few words, on behalf of the Opposition I am delighted to support the motion. I hope the Commonwealth Attorney-General will meet with his State counterpart for the purpose of drafting the terms of reference of the proposed royal commission. I hope both Attorneys make the terms of reference available to all parties who have conducted an unrelenting campaign so that justice is finally done.

Mr HATTON (South Coast) [12.52], in reply: I thank both the Government and the Opposition for their strong support of the motion. This is an historic day and I hope that because all parties are united, we will achieve our aim, which is a full and independent inquiry. The honourable member for Ashfield said that only new evidence and evidence which has not been the subject of reasonable inquiry in the past should be examined. I agree with that, but I do not agree that that should be the end of it. I am sure he did not mean that. Earlier I said that the answers lie with those Commonwealth and State officials who failed in their duty, were incompetent, dishonest or devious, obfuscated the truth, abused the due process of the courts, knowingly lied and presented false evidence. In that regard the honourable member for Ashfield mentioned that witnesses have been discredited. He referred to the comments of Mr Justice Murphy in relation to Richard Seary. Those comments were added to by Mr Justice Wood. He found that Seary had not told the truth on at least 50 occasions, yet he was "a person of considerable intelligence and imagination who craved recognition and status and who was willing to exaggerate, bend the truth and lie in appropriate circumstances". The key question to the proposed inquiry is why these witnesses were used. Each of the witnesses was discredited. In the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the appeal of Tim Anderson, the Chief Justice said that, although Anderson was convicted of murder apparently on the strength of Pederick's evidence, the evidence had been significantly misrepresented to the jury and that those misrepresentations had not been corrected by the trial judge. The Chief Justice also said:

There was a major weakness in the evidence of Pederick. On any view of the matter his account of the events of 12th February, 1978, and in particular of the circumstances relating to the actual attempt at assassination is clearly unreliable. He is incapable of giving a description of those events which does not involve serious error. His evidence about important aspects of the matter was demonstrated to be wrong in a number of respects.

Later in the judgment the court said:

The Crown was permitted in an unfair manner to obscure a major difficulty concerning

Page 5946the reliability of the evidence of its principal witness by raising a hypothesis that was not reasonably open on the evidence.

Those two extracts are to be found at pages 52 and 53 to 65 of the judgment of 6th June. Attempts to rehabilitate Pederick's credibility were criticised by the Court of Criminal Appeal. At page 63 of the judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal had this to say about Denning:

The character and antecedents of Denning are such that the jury should properly have regarded his evidence with the most serious reservations. In addition the objective facts cast substantial doubt upon the accuracy of Denning's evidence. On one of the occasions when the appellant was said to have made an admission to him, the prison record shows that the appellant and Denning were not together and could not possibly have communicated. I consider that a jury acting reasonably would give Denning's evidence little or no weight.

In his contribution the honourable member for Ashfield referred to a number of outstanding questions. I agree with those and I agree with the comments made by the Attorney General. I should like to add a number of other questions. Did any member of the security forces have advance knowledge of the bombing and, if so, from what source? What happened to the forensic evidence from the bomb site? Why was it that the nature of the explosives and the device that exploded could not be determined? When was the warning call to police received and was it acted on promptly? Did the police know at the time that the evidence led at the 1982 inquest from the witness Richard Seary was false? If so, why was it led and who was responsible? This whole matter is shot full of holes; it has no credibility. It must be re-investigated. Terry Griffiths and I have been in contact for many years. In my view he is a man of great stature who has suffered grievously. In his latest letter to me dated 22nd October, he said:

If a victim of that tragedy cannot look to you, a member of the Parliament, for justice, then there is no justice in this State.

Madam DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Order! The honourable member has exhausted his time for speaking.